Yeah, haha. Clearly you don't care which is the point I've been making for months. Nobody cares about somebody dying that they don't know, that's just a statistic. I'm totally fine with that until those statistics are used as a club. Its disingenuous, just like your comment.
About what? The fact that I'm honest about being indifferent towards the deaths of people I dont know? At least I dont exploit them as statistics to gain political points. I dont hear you citing the world-wide death totals from covid because you are heartbroken over it, only the US deaths because you can blame them on your political nemesis.
It bothers me that morons on the internet now think they know more than the CDC.
This has been explained here ad nausium. These guys have nothing better to do than troll the board.
amp.cnn.com
How many millions of people died due to them downplaying the virus? Clearly they had the worst response in the world
The problem with this is that earlier in the year, only symptomatic people were being tested when we had really high death numbers. That portion of the sample size skews the rate to some extent. We likely won't see 150k deaths in the next few weeks, but its possible.
Yeah, any government that deliberately downplayed the virus should be held accountable, right Crazy?
SMH. Most responsible people understood from the beginning that there's nothing the least bit political about coming together as a nation to keep folks safe during a pandemic.
If you limit your position to that, literally nobody would have a problem with it. Its when you start citing US deaths and acting like you are personally upset about those deaths that you lose your credibility. If you really did care about the death count, you would cite worldwide death totals. Just be honest about the fact that you address this as a political issue.
He mentioned R0 which tracks the contagiousness of the disease in a completely susceptible population (it is the average number of people infected by 1 infectious person). It's used to assess an initial outbreak and predict the number of infections and lethality and a bunch of other stuff. You're talking about the IFR which is the lethality. Most of the models are built on R0 but it's not always the best seed for the predictions. (https://www.the-scientist.com/features/why-r0-is-problematic-for-predicting-covid-19-spread-67690)
You want to talk to ME about citing US deaths (which I haven't) when you've started a bunch of threads about the vast conspiracy surrounding 'fake' covid death counts?
You've made it a political issue from the get-go. Just because I've strongly disagreed with you from the get-go doesn't mean it's political for me. It's just plain ol' commonsense.
You misunderstood what I was saying. I'm saying that since we have 2 periods of time, 1 in which essentially only symptomatic people were tested, and another that includes both symptomatic and asymptomatic people, we can't pool those numbers together and get an accurate representation of either. An assumption is always made on infection rate based on case rate. Now, we have no idea how many cases there were because its blended in with infections. Imagine having a pool of 100 people. 5 showed symptoms and tested positive and 1 d An additional 10 people with no symptoms also tested positive, but 35 more with no symptoms tested negative. Its literally impossible to predict at that point whether the other 50 have been infected. Do you assume an additional 10 were positive? Or is it possible that all 50 were but showed no symptoms so they didn't get tested? That could change the IFR estimate by 100%. To compound the issue, by testing asymptomatic patients and pooling positives together, we can't even come up with an accurate CFR because we no longer know who actually got sick and should be considered a case.
"You Trumpsters continue to make covid-19 a political thing. Hell, after Trump poo-poo'ed the virus through 250,000 deaths, suddenly you want him to get full credit for a vaccine! Simply amazing."
I constantly shake my head at the non-stop stupidity of our "just the sniffles" crowd.
I'm aghast at all the deaths, especially the ones we could have prevented here at home.
Is that why you said this about Herman Cain?
1) It was funny; and
Fair enough. You are saying that not all deaths really matter to you and some can be joked about, correct? I wholeheartedly agree on this if that's what you are saying.
Yeah, it's all part of the vast covid-19 conspiracy. 🙄
Not a conspiracy. Just finally a recognition of the fact that the virus isn't what they said it was in March. The world's leading expert on this says so.
Isn't what they said it was in March??!? Are you kidding me??!?
Ok, they were right.
You and your Chud buddies are all brilliant viral scientists and Dr. Fauci is a worthless hack.
Thats not what I said. Fauci just took 8 months to catch up. Are you with us yet or still clinging to faulty information from when you guys were trying to destroy the lives of doctors that were saying this same stuff?
I'm sick and tired of playing this stupid covid-19 game with you and your buddies.
Let's be honest, lockdowns work in the ideal case. This would be the case where everyone could provision for 2 - 3 weeks of total isolation and then everything would shut down. No one would leave their living quarters for 2 - 3 weeks period. There would be absolutely no physical interaction among human beings of different households at all. Those who are infected would either recover or die. We'd come clean up afterwards but the virus would die out.
This would have to be done on a global scale, and it would have to be taken x 2 weeks for every person in the same household. 5 people in your house = 10 weeks of quarantine.
I think that you'd only have 10 weeks if the virus cycles through your household. But with that said, to be absolutely sure, you're right. This excludes any chance of test failures and asymptomatic carriers.
I appreciate you @KNIGHTTIME^. Especially when we are saying the same thing.
